Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Unstable Lateral Malleolar Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical and functional outcomes after operative and nonoperative treatment of undisplaced, unstable, isolated fibula fractures. DESIGN: Randomized multicenter clinical trial. SETTING: Six level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one patients with undisplaced, unstable, isolated fibula fractures as confirmed by an external rotation stress examination demonstrating an increase in medial clear space to 5 mm or greater were followed for 12 months after treatment. INTERVENTION: Forty-one patients were treated operatively by open reduction and internal fixation of the fibula. Forty patients underwent nonoperative treatment, which included the use of a short leg cast or brace and protected weight bearing for 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Functional outcomes determined using the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score and the Short Form 36. Radiographic outcomes included measurement of union and displacement at each visit. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in functional outcome scores or pace of recovery between the operative and nonoperative groups at any time interval (β = -0.28, 3.49; P = 0.936). Complications in the nonoperative group included 8 patients with a medial clear space ≥5 mm and 8 patients with delayed union or nonunion. In the operative group, 5 patients had a surgical site infection and 5 patients required hardware removal. CONCLUSIONS: Patients managed operatively had equivalent functional outcomes compared with nonoperative treatment; however, the risk of displacement and problems with union was substantially lower in patients managed with surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".